Legal-Courts

Grass Smoking and Christians Law

BOISEGUARDIAN.COM exclusive

The Idaho Supreme Court Wednesday issued an opinion which saw a pro-marijuana petition guy with no attorney prevail over a batch of lawyers in Sun Valley and a Blaine County judge.

Ironically, Ryan Davidson’s “weed smokin” petition case–which began in 2004–uses much of the same law and reasoning that benefited the Christians in the Ten Commandments case.

The short version is that Davidson collected the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot, presented the petition in the proper form and was rejected by the city clerk who was without authority to rule on anything but the propriety of the petition itself.

Davidson sought to permit the growth, sale, and use of marijuana in the city of Sun Valley and to get the city to advocate changes in the Idaho marijuana laws. The key here is that he has the right to ask for these things, the voters can then say YES or NO and only then can the case be “ripe” for a court case.

Same thing happened in Boise with the Ten Commandment stone. The Christians got the signatures, but Team Dave’s legal crew wouldn’t allow the legislative (initiative) process to play out. Boise lost when the Supremes judged the case and the court noted the similarities in their latest opinion.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder concurred in the opinion, but noted the decision “in no way sanctions the legitimacy of the initiative.” He went on to say time, effort, and money would be wasted in what would eventually amount to an opinion poll of a small segment of the voters. We agree, but applaud the Chief for his legal convictions.

With the Court’s recent rulings in the FRAZIER vs Boise parking garage case, the Ten Commandments Coalition vs Boise, and now Davidson vs Sun Valley, local governments should be getting the message: The absolute power of the CITIZENS must be considered carefully and not dismissed because the politicos don’t like whatever issue the people are seeking to get on the ballot.

LET MY PEOPLE VOTE!

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. I understand the logic for allowing the citizens to vote on an issue and the goverment should allow that to happen. We live in a country with multiple layers of goverment(federal,state,county,city) but the monkeys may not pass laws that are not in accordance with the 800 pound Gorilla’s laws. The Gorrilas say it is illegal to grow, sell and smoke the wacky grass. How I understand this issue, the monkeys would have to go to bat and for surely to strike out when this voter intiative is passed. This wacky grass intiaitive would go up in smoke very quickly at a cost to taxpayers.

    Where as the Ten Commandents issue has been open to a variety of interpretations. The gorillas and King Kongs even have them in their huts.

    EDITOR NOTE–You are totally correct. That is why the courts–not city clerks or mayors–decide what is legal. It is those “variety of interpretations” that dictate out system of checks and balances. To allow one person or group to prelude others from voting throws off the balance in the scales of justice.

  2. Rekon you should get a “dope reporter” award for this story, Dave. I news.google’d for the story of Ryan Davidson and marijuana, and came up dry. Channel two’s news site mentions his name, but not what the petition was about.

    It -is- kinda important, IMHO. I think the term is “rule of law”?

  3. Razzbar:

    Dave broke the story. But for the 2-year backstory, google “Liberty Lobby of Idaho” in quotes. Lots of stories in the Idaho Mountain Express (Ketchum paper.)

    Ryan

  4. Funny how everything has to go to the Supremes to get all the other levels and legs of government folks to obey the law.

    Maybe a condition of being elected to any office — besides age and residency — should be the ability to read and understand at least a certain percentage of the laws pertaining to the office in question.

    What a concept! (Guess it wouldn’t fly in D.C., though, huh?)

  5. Local government makes interpretations of law all the time in the administration of government. I continue to adhere to my previously expressed point of view that its ridiculous to obligate an expensive taxpayer funded election at the whim of a malcontent with a facially illegal proposal.

    However, in this case Mr. Davidson’s point is well taken that the City lacked any procedure from which they could do what they did. That was the City’s fault. But I beleive its a dangerous and expensive precedent to obligate taxpayer funded entities to have a futile election.

  6. Gordon,

    Sun Valley’s attorneys understood the law perfectly well. They started with a goal, which was “keep the initiative off the ballot” then worked backwards. “How do we get around our own ordinance which says we have to process this petition” they asked themselves. They basicially pulled a Clinton, and debated the meaning of the word “is.” And hey, citizen, if you got a problem with this, try and sue us. If we lose, its not our money that gets wasted, its yours.

    This is the attitude that pervades almost every city attorney’s office and is supported by most councils.

    The problem is not that they don’t understand the law, it’s that there are no consequences when they break it.

    (Except for maybe a recall, which has to go through the city clerk, who can screw with the petition the same way she did with the initiative petition.)

    Yes, this exact scenario happened to me.

    Sigh…

    Ryan

  7. Although the petition should have been processed so it could have been put up for a vote, my empathy lies with the non-complying clerk that probably had children that need protection from the likes of Ryan Davidson. Denver in November passed similar legislation, and now the children of Denver have easier access to this seemingly benign but dangerous gateway drug.

    Coming from a family genetically predispositioned to drug abuse I have a few questions for Ryan Davidson.

    Why do you want my seven and ten-year old boys to have easier access to drugs that have killed their uncles and imprisoned their cousins?

    Our country can’t outlaw cigarettes because it is a bloody cash cow for state and federal government, do we need cash so badly that we need to legalize another addictive substance to fatten the coffers of government at the expense of its citizenry?

    I have had a front row seat in, decadent, liberal, California to the demise and death of many of my friends. I moved to Idaho so I could raise my children where there were fewer drugs. Ryan Davidson, why do you wish to bring decay and tragedy to Idaho when you could simply move to beautiful but tragic Humboldt California where degenerate lifestyles are already an accepted part of the local culture?

    Ryan Davidson, your misguided interpretation of liberty interferes with mine and the culture in which you live. I wish to be free from your sub-culture that values afghani and sativa sinsemilla, a sub culture that metastasizes our culture as a whole. Our culture would be better off free from decadent metaphorical cancers like you.

  8. Sysyphus: First thing, this is not just “a malcontent”. The petition was proper, with the necessary number of signatures. What is illegal about it?

    Are you attempting to foist off the same absurd circular reasoning that people have been using ever since the first attempt to reform marijuana laws — “it’s illegal, so it has to be illegal”.

    Laws CAN be changed. It is NOT illegal to change a law. Indeed, there are MANY laws that SHOULD be changed. E.g. the absurd marijuana laws.

    Are you saying that a law legalizing mj in a county or city would be illegal because state law “trumps” county and city laws? Well, maybe… maybe that’s so. But I don’t know that. I know that it’s a common belief that federal laws trump state laws. But that simply isn’t true.

    Maybe initiatives should be required to pass some kind of constitutional muster before going on the ballot. But wouldn’t that amount to letting the courts legislate?

    The SC is correct on both initiative descisions. There is a “straight path” to follow, and it requires that a law be made into law before the court can test it. The system isn’t broke.

  9. robert blakeley
    Oct 1, 2006, 12:14 am

    Are you joking me? do you really thimk weed is so dangerous and addictive that it really needs to be outlawed? You truly live in lala land. One thing is for sure,you don’t know what you are talking about. Alcohol,nicotine,and fatty foods are much more addictve and definitly kill thousands more every year than weed ever hoped to. You are just an idiotic scare monger.

    I worked hard on this initiative (yes my name is on it)because the citizens of idaho are on equal footing with the state legislature to create law. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is something our elected officials seem to forget as soon as they get to the state house.

    Obviously I am right and you are wrong. The supreme court (a very right wing conservative one at that) agrees with me.

    EDITOR NOTE–The issue is the right to vote, NOT the merits of pot!

  10. curious george
    Oct 1, 2006, 10:13 am

    I’ve hesitated weighing in on this subject because I can see the benefits of both sides. On one hand, we (the People) need a way to protect ourselves from the hyper-fringe who seem intent on controlling our lives through poorly considered, interpreted, and enforced laws. Yet we (the People) also need to be aware how easy it is to slide into a mobacracy form of government.

    It’s a common misconception that we live in a democracy, we don’t. Our government is a representative-form termed a democratic republic. This means we elect a small group of people to speak for us on a wide range of issues. If we find that any of these representatives are failing in their obligations (by over-reaching their limited authority, or taking a position that we disagree with), the option we’ve given ourselves is to elect someone else for the new term.

    Should we make our laws by majority vote? I don’t think so. If this were the case we would still have the nightmare of Jim Crow laws, and women wouldn’t have the right to vote. Why, because at those times in history the majority of people thought that these conditions were appropriate.

    But here’s the rub. We’ve allowed elected representation to become a career option. Being a “politician” was never intended to be a life-long occupation, it was to have been a necessary obligation that one set aside after one or two terms. Yet the deck is stacked in favor of those (sorry I can’t use a term any less accurate) scary few who for some quirk of personality love to tell people how to live their lives. The only medicant seems to be the referrendum. It allows us to directly (potentially) interrupt the term of office of a miscreant politician, and to over-ride an unjust law.

    What’s the answer? Especially, when the referrendum is used to voice simple disagreement over an issue – or as a bully pulpit to shout down a duly elected representative.

  11. George, you provide the rebuttal to your own argument.

    We (the people) VOTED for term limits, but the arrogant legislature ignored us and repealed the law we passed. The people don’t have the cash to pay the politcos as much as big business does.

    “Should we make laws by majority vote?” YES! We elect representatives by majority vote and they pass laws by majority vote.

    Only We (the people) with the help of the courts got the repeal of Jim Crow laws and equal rights for women. Idaho is the only state in the union to repeal ratification of a constitutional amendment–equal rights for women.

    Most elected officials think like you–“We were elected, so do as we say and if you don’t like it we dare you to try and unseat us.”

    Thanks to the Guardian and even Ryan Davidson’s pot petition we see the true colors of local government. The court remains our only salavation at present. At least they understand and respect the rule of law.

  12. Razzbar, its illegal because state and federal law trumps. No I’m not foisting the circular argument. The prohibition on marijuana has failed just like the one on alcohol failed and we as a society should recognize it. Personally I believe society would be better served changing the law, legalizing marijuana, regulating the hell out of it, and giving it a healthy sin tax. The tax would easily support any negative consequence, it would take the ample revenue from outlaws who currently receive the billions of dollars the cash crop generates, and thereby making it less of a “gateway” drug by keeping ordinary buyers of the product from establishing connections with dealers who have a wide array of illegal substances to sell.

    Contrary to Daryl L. Hunter’s tale of woe, my experience tells me that young males drinking alcohol are much more aggressive and tend to create more problems for law enforcement, to say nothing of meth. You just don’t see too many potheads vandalizing property or getting in fights. In fact if anything it steals their ambition to do much at all. Legalizing marijuana would drastically reduce our prison population and free up law enforcement resources for more serious matters.

    But this election will be futile because after the City shells out the taxpayer money for it, and it passes, the City will have to expend further resources defending the matter in Court with the State, only to have this same Supreme Court shooting it down because of the State having supremacy in the area. While this may or may not be a motive of the intiative’s proponents, the ruling has the consequence of requiring the City attorney to champion the losing cause in Court.

    The ruling imposes inefficient governmental layers on an overtaxed system. Why do we want that? It also fails to encourage initiative proponents from consulting attorneys or becoming educated on the legal consequences of their proposed initiative. If the people want a law changed, they should honestly attack the law to be changed rather than hijacking the resources of local government in a futile attempt of changing the law by way of an indirect attack.

    Excellent comments George.

  13. curious george
    Oct 1, 2006, 4:16 pm

    “Logic cannot deter the committed man.” – Kafka

    Unfortunately, we don’t create our laws by majority vote – in as much as I have never (nor I suspect any of you) ever been asked to vote on a law, outside of a referendum process. Unless you were elected into a representative posting.

    If there were 100 representatives casting a vote on a bill, my one representative (who may have only won his/her election by a single vote – mine) still is only going to have a one-percent voice on the issue – and even if s/he is in office because of my single vote, there’s no guarantee that s/he will side with me on the bill. The perception that the majority of the electorate always wins within a democratic republic form of government is an illusion. And don’t even get me started on the Electoral Vote – majority-win my patoot!

    But this is our system of government, and the referenda process erodes its stability. A stability guaranteed, not by the legislative process but by a balance of power with the judicial and executive branches.

    Term limit propositions, which if passed (and which could withstand constitutional scrutiny) sometimes seem like a good idea to me. But I can’t get around the perception that they are put forward by people who wish they could impose their opinion on another jurisdiction – because they dislike that jurisdiction’s choice of representative. There are certainly some Idaho legislators that I think shouldn’t be serving in office, but I don’t live in their district – how much more simple for me if they could just fade away after their limit is up.

    But a successful term limit form of government may precipitate an even more aristocratic form of leadership than we have now, in which our (firm-handshaking, white-teeth smiling, baby kissing) elected leaders may always be playing catch-up on complex governmental obligations. As a result we may be forced to ensconce a beaurocratic tier of “managers” who would handle the day-to-day operations of government (a la Britain). Very un-American.

    Yet even when I write this I know that our federal Senate has a lower turn-over than the British House of Lords (and only a Lord’s death removes him from office!).

  14. Robert Blakeley,
    In my post I acknowledged the petition should have been processed, I then pointed out my empathy lies with a clerk that is trying to protect children from those who wish to proliferate a decadent lifestyle.

    From 1980 till 1985 I lived in Phillipsville CA. ground zero of Humboldt County’s legendary outlaw drug production culture. In that time I saw many happy hippies turn into pitiful cokeheads. I saw redneck loggers sharecropping and brokering pot deals. Cops, teachers and anyone else you could think of had a few plants somewhere which for most was a banana peel towards a coke habit.

    Robert, I’m afraid that I do know what I am talking about, I lived in the underbelly you only dream about. I did live in lala land and I chose to move away. When you get your decadent nirvana be prepared for the trash that comes along with it.

  15. robert blakeley
    Oct 2, 2006, 10:06 am

    Yes the children. We must protect them. God knows that since marijuana is now illegal they can no longer get it.

    This is simply ostrich thinking.(yes your head is buried in the sand) I’m glad you at least recognize the fact that citizens have the right to create laws through the initiative process.
    That your recourse against those POTENTIAL laws is to vote against them. That’s better than what you would ever be offered by any sitting governmental body.

    As for the war on drugs,surely you haven’t beleived the load of crap the government tried to sell all of us. My advice would be to do a study of illegal drugs and why and how they got that way. It is actually a very interesting study. You will discover that the reasons they were outlawed have very little to do with protecting anyone as much as they were used to discrimnate against minority groups and the ignorant. Yes drug abuse can hurt you. So can overeating or a sendentary lifestyle. In fact these two things kill more than drugs. But hey who is counting. Remember :”your drug is worse than mine and therefore should be outlawed”.

  16. Would Mr. Hunter agree to insert “guns” for “pot” in his diatribe? I bet not. It is not my fault that you and your kin abuse substances. My wife can rub poison oak on her arms and nothing happens. Does that mean I can do the same? I avoid it. What makes us as a culture decide to make any of God’s creation “illegal”. Your la la Land in CA is a result of the laws prohibiting pot. Take away the money and the proplem will fade away. I’ve lived in three places in the world where pot grew wild, along fences and walls. No one was stoned out of their mind except in Nepal where white people came just so they could do it without getting arrested.

  17. John, Robert and Ryan

    In Humboldt County the illegality was overlooked on a local level because it brought so much money into an economy that had been decimated by anti logging forces. The simple back to the earthers that showed up in the 70’s by accident found their excess pot had value in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York etc., by default they were in business because locally it was nearly legal which triggered an over abundance. Then the capitalists showed up, they had little tolerance for the peace and love types, they just wanted to make big money.

    Newcomers that lacked the money for their own land grew guerilla gardens in the national forest and bobby trapped them with rat traps that would trigger shotgun shells at intruders, it was no longer safe to take a hike in the public woods.

    John, Robert and Ryan, if marijuana became legal in Idaho you and your children who have been raised by poor role models will be selling your excess bounty to misguided folks in Wyoming, Nevada, Montana and Oregon, an identical dynamic that brought decadence to Humboldt. Worse yet, Idaho would become a destination resort for dopers.

    Your neighbor just up the Wood River that wants to make a million dollars will be guarding his crop with mini fourteens, uzis and shotgun booby traps and your 14 year old is going to be the one that can’t resist the temptation to rip a bud after he runs out of his own.

    One must always be ready for The Law of Unintended Consequences, nirvana often looks better in a dream than it does after it unfolds into reality.

  18. It’s simple. 1) the feds do not have the man power to go after a guy with an ounce. 2) therefore it the state boys aren’t worried, no one gets busted for a simple herb. 3) This also helps astablish legal precendence, which towards eventualy making it legal all over this country to hold enough herb on you to all you to feel better, ease your pain, calm your anxiety, (List the long medicinal effects of this herb). Bless the voters, go for it!

  19. The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

    The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

    Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

    While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

    As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

    I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

  20. The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

    The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

    Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

    While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

    As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

    I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

  21. The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

    The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

    Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

    While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

    As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

    I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

  22. The right to the initiative process — as well as the closely related petition for redress of grievances — form the very philosophical foundation of our constitutional republic. If the citizens’ are denied free and open access to either right, the constitution is utterly meaningless, as elected officials and bureaucrats can, over time and circumstance, do anything they want to and interpret the law anyway they wish. There is virtually no recourse left the citizenry except through the electoral process, which has also been pretty much rigged and restricted by politicians and lawyers.

    The constitution of Idaho states that the citizens are of “equal stature” with the legislature when it comes to proposing and enacting public law. Just as any legislator is free to propose any law he wishes (no matter how ill conceived – and there is plenty of this each session), so any citizen is also free to use the initiative process to propose law. The citizenry form a sort of “fourth branch” of government in Idaho (as in other states with similar constitutions), and form a check and balance on institutional power developed by vested interests gaining control over the police power of government over time.

    Had the supreme court voted against Davidson and his right to propose any law he wished (yes, even one that was currently illegal or ill-conceived), then our constitutional liberties here would have been reduced to a mere pretext only.

    While any of you may not agree with smoking dope, it is simply not your decision, but the people’s as a whole as voiced through the legislature or through the initiative process, which work together to form an effective check on the abuse of either process.

    As a life long “Mormon,” I don’t believe in smoking dope. It is an extremely stupid and irresponsible thing to do. What I value much more than my opinion on dope, however, is the liberty granted by my Creator … liberties which men continually conspire to steal from all of us.

    I much prefer to trust the voice of the people as a whole over the voice of an elite few when push comes to shove. That’s why I heartily supported Davidson’s case and applaud the supreme court for their integrity.

  23. Arne Ryason
    Sep 27, 2007, 8:27 pm

    What all this “marijuana” advocacy misses is the real point behind hemp prohibition. It is all a big distraction. For the real story go here: http://www.jackherer.com/ It was outlawed because of cellulose and the petrochemical lobby, not drugs.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address:

Categories